Since Treasury released the draft CGT apportioning formula on 4 August, the conversation has moved on. Consultation closed on 21 August, and the accounting profession has started weighing in publicly, on the same side I've been recommending since the draft was announced.
Where things stand
The apportioning method is still only a draft, not yet law. Consultation closed 21 August 2026, and there's no word yet on whether changes will be made in response to submissions.
Nothing about the 1 July 2027 deemed disposal and reacquisition date, or the 30 June 2027 asset-scope date, has changed.
Treasury's parallel Tax Reform No. 3 Bill, covering related technical adjustments, is progressing through the same consultation window.
What the profession is now saying
Two industry bodies have gone on record since the draft was released, and both make the same distinction I’ve been drawing since 4 August.
IPA senior tax adviser Tony Greco has confirmed a valuation does not need to be completed by 30 June 2027 itself, only that it reflects the asset's market value as at that date. “For assets where growth has been uneven, taxpayers may be better served by obtaining a formal valuation, particularly where most of the growth occurred before 1 July 2027,” Greco said.
CPA Australia tax lead Jenny Wong acknowledges that the proposed formula may exist as a lower-cost option for straightforward cases but has cautioned that it could put growth on the wrong side of the tax divide.
“A formula is only fair if it reflects reality. Australians whose asset did most of its growing before 1 July 2027, then flattened, will be disadvantaged under the apportionment methodology,” she said.
The consistent view is not that the formula is wrong for everyone. For a simple asset that has appreciated steadily in a stable market, it may well be the more cost-effective choice. The risk sits with more complex assets. Multi-property portfolios, commercial and rural holdings, assets in volatile or shifting markets, or anything where growth has been uneven rather than linear. That is where a formal valuation pays for itself.
I'd add one thing from the residential side of our business. In more than two decades overseeing valuations across every capital city, steady growth has been the exception, not the rule, and it hasn't been evenly spread. Adelaide and Brisbane had a genuinely steady stretch through 2010 to 2020, each moving up by around 20% over the decade. But over roughly the same window, other markets lived through the GFC crash, then the pandemic and the record 0.10% cash rate that came with it, plus rezoning windfalls in some suburbs sitting alongside flat patches in others, sometimes in the same city at the same time. "Stable market" is a fair description of a specific place and period. It's not something I'd assume applies to a property, or a decade, without checking.
Our position
For a simple, steadily appreciating property asset in a genuinely stable market, the formula may be a reasonable lower-cost option, and I’m not arguing otherwise. For anything more complex, or held through the kind of market swings most property owners have lived through, a market valuation completed as at 1 July 2027, prepared by a qualified valuer with current evidence, remains the more reliable way for a client to know their position. Preparation and booking can happen now (or retrospectively). The valuation itself is dated 1 July 2027, as the law requires.
This update is provided for general information only and does not constitute financial, tax or legal advice. Clients should speak with their accountant or financial adviser about how these changes apply to their individual circumstances.